Colts first UFA WR Devin Funchess

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I’m not interested in “winning the offseason” and I’m sure neither is NE. I’m interested in improving the team. My point with New England is they do whatever it takes to get better. So while I agree with you that NE isn’t typically big spenders in the off season, they have and will do it. But either way they definitely take risks. Right now the available players that meet what I perceive as the Colts criteria is very, very small. Young, talented, cheap (or at least willing to sign for very short term), with no character concerns. Great goals certainly, but not a lot of guys like that to choose from. Except in the draft, which is what Ballard wants anyway.

On GB I’ll admit I’m not an expert, but my understanding has been that GB hasn’t been in cap hell and had to cut players because of it. They’ve been “financially responsible”. My memory is that a huge criticism of Thompson has been that he’s sat on cap space instead of fixing known holes. And when his drafted solutions didn’t pan out the holes remained while the money sat in the bank. I have a couple friends that are Packer fans and that is definitely their perception and criticism of him. I realize that doesn’t make it reality though.

As far as the comment about signing Collins, I apologize I actually thought I was responding to Chaka. Although I do think that most who 100% back every Ballard decision would have backed him pulling the trigger on Collins. Simply because it’s the decision he made. That’s reason enough.

I don't follow the cheese heads, either, but I thought they had to part with one of their top WRs due to cap issues after they gave ARodgers a semi of money. I could be wrong on that, however.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by VeveJones007

What you aren't conceding is that there's so much in common between NE's strategy and Ballard's. NE has a few key pieces, but they primarily focus on the draft and mid to lower tier free agents.

They go heavy on vets. They don’t gift guys playing time. They mostly figure out how to use the Hankins, Andersons, and Simons on their roster. They take risks on guys with character issues. They aren’t playing for a window 2 years from now. I guess they both love draft picks. That’s hardly unique among teams though.

I assume you are referring to their cap management, but I see more differences than similarities. While they are responsible enough to maintain flexibility they do it in a significantly different way. At least a different way than Chaka envisions Ballard operating. Chaka’s whole post that I replied to is about how Ballard is maintaining flexibility to pay the home grown guys proven in the Colts system. I agree with him that that’s Ballard’s plan. But NE is specifically known for not investing heavily in their home grown talent. They are known for getting a players best years and letting someone else pay them in their decline.

So you are right - I won’t concede that Ballard’s approach has a lot in common with NE’s because it doesn’t. I am 100% certain that if Belichick were running the Colts this year he would be focused on winning a super bowl this year. Do you really believe that’s Ballard’s focus? Or is he focused on stacking drafts and maintaining flexibility for 2-3 years from now? We both know the answer to that question.

[Racehorse]

Originally Posted by rm1369

Let’s be clear - I fucking hate NE, but the one thing I will grudgingly admit I admire is that they seem to prioritize winning it all now over being really good for a long time. They peak better than any team in the league. They just do it consistently.

Here's my take on NE, aside from the cheating stuff. They are very good at getting cheaper players to perform. When they max out, they move on and let WAS or DET or someone overpay. When they do, they add a comp pick. This year, I think they have three or four comp picks, most in the league. This allows them to draft more players and keep payroll in check. I think this is kind of what I see Ballard doing. He drafts as many players as possible by trading down. (Granted, we don't have much history to look at) When players walk, we get more picks. Other teams overpay and never get the car out of second gear.

[Chaka]

Originally Posted by rm1369

I used to believe that the best way to a title was to be really good for as long as possible and things would break your way. But I’ve been both a Colts and a Pacers fan for a long time, so I no longer believe that. Trying so hard to maintain success means shorting yourself now for the ability to sustain the success in future years.

I appreciate the thoughtful response (and without resorting to cheapshots and name calling), and you’re right that we just have a fundamental disagreement. As you can probably tell, I fully subscribe to Ballard’s approach (at least my understanding of it as outlined in my prior post). Since the playing field is relatively level given the salary cap, I think you need to always be focused on maximizing your efficiency to get ahead. Greatness is absolutely sustainable over a long period, particularly when you have the most important piece (QB) already in place like we do. So in my view we don’t need to be a constant fire-reload-fire-reload cycle as I think you’re suggesting. I won’t cite to the Patriots either, because they been caught cheating repeatedly and thus I’ve got no confidence that they deserve their success.

Also, the Manning-led Colts were great, not just good – and certainly as assembled, should have won multiple SBs. But for whatever reason – bad coaching, bad playing, or bad luck – they tended to fall apart in the playoffs. They just weren’t the same team in the playoffs, and I put that squarely on the players and coaches. I don’t think adding a free agent or two would have changed that in any meaningful way. But make no mistake, they were a dominant team - Polian had that team in a position to succeed. And, from a fan’s perspective, they were fun to watch, even in those seasons we didn’t win the SB (now, try to convince me that seasons like 2017 were fun – because I recall thinking during the games that I wasn’t enjoying it at all. Even in the few games we won, it just sucked).

I refuse to believe that overpaying outside free agents is any way to succeed. The more you maximize performance for the cap dollars you have, the better you will be – it’s basic and undeniable. And overpaying free agents runs directly contrary to this principle. It should be a last resort, if anything.

As I said in my last post, at bottom it’s really a question of talent evaluation more than anything else. If you draft well and make smart free agent acquisitions (both in terms of money and talent), you will succeed. If you don’t draft well and overspend wildly in free agency, you will fail. The more you act like the former, the more you will succeed, and the more you act like the latter, the worse off you will be.

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Racehorse

Here's my take on NE, aside from the cheating stuff. They are very good at getting cheaper players to perform. When they max out, they move on and let WAS or DET or someone overpay. When they do, they add a comp pick. This year, I think they have three or four comp picks, most in the league. This allows them to draft more players and keep payroll in check. I think this is kind of what I see Ballard doing. He drafts as many players as possible by trading down. (Granted, we don't have much history to look at) When players walk, we get more picks. Other teams overpay and never get the car out of second gear.

I agree to an extent. I think Ballard will be very conscious of opportunities to add comp picks. However I’m not under the impression he will be anywhere near NE in letting players walk. His comments have all been about prioritizing home grown players. I see Ballard as being much more in the Polian mode than the Belichick mode.

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by rm1369

They go heavy on vets. They don’t gift guys playing time. They mostly figure out how to use the Hankins, Andersons, and Simons on their roster. They take risks on guys with character issues. They aren’t playing for a window 2 years from now. I guess they both love draft picks. That’s hardly unique among teams though.

I assume you are referring to their cap management, but I see more differences than similarities. While they are responsible enough to maintain flexibility they do it in a significantly different way. At least a different way than Chaka envisions Ballard operating. Chaka’s whole post that I replied to is about how Ballard is maintaining flexibility to pay the home grown guys proven in the Colts system. I agree with him that that’s Ballard’s plan. But NE is specifically known for not investing heavily in their home grown talent. They are known for getting a players best years and letting someone else pay them in their decline.

So you are right - I won’t concede that Ballard’s approach has a lot in common with NE’s because it doesn’t. I am 100% certain that if Belichick were running the Colts this year he would be focused on winning a super bowl this year. Do you really believe that’s Ballard’s focus? Or is he focused on stacking drafts and maintaining flexibility for 2-3 years from now? We both know the answer to that question.

The Patriots prioritize adding guys through the draft and supplementing with mid and low-tier UFAs, as well as finding cheap trades. Yes, the Patriots have signed more seasoned vets in those scenarios, but they are highly emphasizing the draft like Ballard.

On your last notes, I concede that Ballard wasn't prioritizing winning a Super Bowl in 2018 or 2019. He's trying to maximize the team's chances in 2020-2025. I've already said that I would have done it differently, but I acknowledge that his plan can work just fine. He's just looking at things on a longer timeline.

[VeveJones007]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I appreciate the thoughtful response (and without resorting to cheapshots and name calling), and you’re right that we just have a fundamental disagreement. As you can probably tell, I fully subscribe to Ballard’s approach (at least my understanding of it as outlined in my prior post). Since the playing field is relatively level given the salary cap, I think you need to always be focused on maximizing your efficiency to get ahead. Greatness is absolutely sustainable over a long period, particularly when you have the most important piece (QB) already in place like we do. So in my view we don’t need to be a constant fire-reload-fire-reload cycle as I think you’re suggesting. I won’t cite to the Patriots either, because they been caught cheating repeatedly and thus I’ve got no confidence that they deserve their success.

Also, the Manning-led Colts were great, not just good – and certainly as assembled, should have won multiple SBs. But for whatever reason – bad coaching, bad playing, or bad luck – they tended to fall apart in the playoffs. They just weren’t the same team in the playoffs, and I put that squarely on the players and coaches. I don’t think adding a free agent or two would have changed that in any meaningful way. But make no mistake, they were a dominant team - Polian had that team in a position to succeed. And, from a fan’s perspective, they were fun to watch, even in those seasons we didn’t win the SB (now, try to convince me that seasons like 2017 were fun – because I recall thinking during the games that I wasn’t enjoying it at all. Even in the few games we won, it just sucked).

I refuse to believe that overpaying outside free agents is any way to succeed. The more you maximize performance for the cap dollars you have, the better you will be – it’s basic and undeniable. And overpaying free agents runs directly contrary to this principle. It should be a last resort, if anything.

As I said in my last post, at bottom it’s really a question of talent evaluation more than anything else. If you draft well and make smart free agent acquisitions (both in terms of money and talent), you will succeed. If you don’t draft well and overspend wildly in free agency, you will fail. The more you act like the former, the more you will succeed, and the more you act like the latter, the worse off you will be.

I'll also say this: there is a fundamental difference in how Ballard is constructing this roster compared to Polian. Ballard is emphasizing inside-out, particularly on the line of scrimmage.

For sake of comparison, here's the draft capital (1st & 2nd rounders) Polian/Ballard invested in the lines early in their tenures. Note that this includes Polian's first 7 years compared to Ballard's first 2 years:

OL: 0/2 (Nelson, Smith)
DL: 2 (Freeney/Tripplett)/2 (Lewis/Turay, though I expect this to be 4 in six weeks)

Ballard has also made it an emphasis to add former high draft picks to the DL (Sheard-2nd, Hunt-2nd, Ward-2nd).

[YDFL Commish]

Why did I think that this was Devin Funchess thread?

[Luck4Reich]

Originally Posted by YDFL Commish

Why did I think that this was Devin Funchess thread?

Whatever gave you that idea?

[rm1369]

Originally Posted by Chaka

I refuse to believe that overpaying outside free agents is any way to succeed. The more you maximize performance for the cap dollars you have, the better you will be – it’s basic and undeniable. And overpaying free agents runs directly contrary to this principle. It should be a last resort, if anything.

You seem to focus on over paying free agents. No where have I advocated for over paying free agents in mass.